All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, Articles 33(2) and 87(1)2 of the Medical Service Act prohibit a non-qualified person from establishing a medical institution by restricting the qualifications of a medical institution founder, an oriental medical doctor, etc., and imposes criminal punishment on such a person who violates the foregoing. This is intended to prevent risks to national health, which may arise when establishing a medical institution for the purpose of establishing sound medical order and making profits by strictly restricting the qualifications of a medical person with expertise in the qualification for establishing a medical institution or persons with public character (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2629, Oct. 27, 201). The establishment of a medical institution prohibited under Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act refers to the establishment of a non-medical institution under the name of a non-medical person, who is neither a medical person nor a person who directly establishes a medical institution under the name of the general public, to directly establish and report the establishment of the relevant medical institution.

In light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that Defendant A was guilty of both the violation of each of the Medical Service Act and the fraud among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.